The contrary view, however, confining the damages in deceit to the value of what the plaintiff parted with, less the value of what he received, has the support of the Supreme Court of the United States,77 and of some State courts.78 This also seems to be the law of England.79 At first sight it may seem that the latter rule is clearly and universally correct, confining as it does the plaintiff's recovery to a restitution of what he lost by entering into the transaction. The real explanation of the broader rule, at least in cases of sales, seems to be that the defendant in deceit is not simply a fraudulent person, he is a warrantor of the truth of his statements. The injured person may, because of fraud, elect to rescind the transaction and claim restitution of what he has parted with, or he may demand that the representations be made good. Ordinary warranties where no fraud exists may be enforced by quality action of tort.80 The addition of the element of deceit cannot deprive the injured person of the rights which would be his if this element were lacking! and if the representation on which he relied was a warranty and nothing more.81. A practical reason for the enforcement of the broader rule may be found in the fact that under the other rule a fraudulent person can in no event lose anything by his fraud. He runs the chance of making a profit if he successfully carries out his plan and is not afterward brought to account for it; and if he is brought to account, he at least will lose nothing by his misconduct.82
74 S. C. 202, 64 8. K 202, 5 L. K A. (N. 8.) 1151.
76 Shaw p. Gilbert, 111 Wis. 165, 86 N. W. 188.
77 Smith v. Bolles, 132 U. S. 125,' 10 S. C. 39, 33 L. Ed. 279; Sigafus v. Porter, 179 U. S. 116, 21 8. C. 34, 44 L. Ed. 113. These decisions have been followed in the lower Federal courts. Wilson v. New U. S. Ranch Co., 73 Fei 994, 36 U. S. App. 634, 20 C C. A. 244; Rockefeller p. Merritt, 78 Fed. 909, 40 U. S. App. 666, 35 L R. A. 633, 22 C. C. A. 608; Nashua Savings Bank v. Burlington Bectric Co., 100 Fed. 673.
78 Tedder v. Biggin, 65 Fla. 153, 61 8o. 244; Buschman v. Codd, 52 Md. 202, 209; Reynolds v. Franklin, 44
Minn. 30, 46 N. W. 139, 20 Am. St. Rep. 540; Wallace v. Hallowell, 56 Minn. 501, 58 N. W. 292; Nelson v. Gbeetrum, 118 Minn. 284, 136 N. W. 858; Crater v. Binninger, 33 N. J. L. 513, 97 Am. Deo. 737; Cawston v. Sturgis, 29 Or. 331, 43 Pao. 656; High v. Berret, 148 Pa. St. 261, 23 Atl. 1004; McCord-Collins Commerce Co. v. Levi, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 109, 50 S. W. 606; Pickens v. Major (Tex. Civ. App.), 139 S. W. 1040; Weeks p. Stevens (Tex. Civ. App.), 155 S. W. 667; Taeoma v. Taooma L. & W. Co., 17 Wash. 458, 482, 50 Pac. 55.
79 Peek v. Deny, 37 Ch. D. 541; McConnel v. Wright,  1 Ch. 546. So in Johnstone ». Hall, 10 Manitoba, 161.